[DanHouck]

OK, I finally scraped up the money and am putting my FPTV together. Projector will be Boxlight 38T (Sanyo XP21N clone), screen width is limited to 86". I also have a Panamorph on order and expect delivery late August. Will use the new Panny RP91 or a Kenwood depending on what the upcoming DVD shootout says.


System use will be almost exclusively for watching movies though I may add digital cable later.


If I use a 16:9 screen, the Panamorph will always have to be in place. As it stands now, none of the equipment will be able to do a "reverse squeeze" on 4:3 material which would allow the Panamorph to display it full height on the 16:9 screen. If I use a 4:3 screen, I can slide the Panny over on its rails and illuminate the full screen.


Which screen size to use? Your comments and suggestions please!


Dan

 

[Cain]

Dan, you are buying the Sanyo?? Not waiting to see the new Sharp z9000 ??


I'd say go 16:9 for a zillion reasons, particularly if you are primarily watching Movies.


-- Cain

 

[arrow]

Dan,


I definitely recommend using the full width for 16x9. The only questions are whether 4:3 with 86" width will be too large for your viewing distance and if black bars bother you.


For me:


o 64x86 is a bit large. Would require about 16' back of viewing distance.


o I prefer viewing movies without black bars.


So....I'd go with something close to 45x80.


--Les

 

[DanHouck]

Cain: Not enough lumens! Yes, I'm buying the Boxlight/Sanyo. Half the price, three times the lumens. That way if someone comes out with a really high rez, much brighter DLP in two years, I won't get too badly burned in the trade. If I was going to go for the next generation DLPs we know about now, it would probably be the Seleco HT300 for it's superior lens and color processing.


Les: I've seen 10HT on this size screen and sitting only 11' away. Screendoor didn't bother me in the least. This setup will have Panamorp + MLA. Much less screendoor.


Back to the question--16:9 or 4:3? The former looks cool and there would be no black bars when viewing DVD through my Panamorph. The latter is a lot more flexible, allowing use of Panny or not.


Opinions on this question, please!


Dan

 

[fludolph]

Dan,


I used a 4:3 screen (8'x6') for many years and I never really liked it. Letterboxed material was just right but 4:3 material was too tall. Now everything is 16:9 (8'x54") through a PLV-60 and it is wonderful. The constant height feels just right.


Same comment applies to direct-view TV. This time the 4:3 material was just right and the letterboxed material was too small. Got a 19:6 direct view and it is always just right.


Of course 2:35 material is now shorter. Not too bad, but... Given that the PLV-60 has a zoom mode that stretches the height of 2.35:1 material to fill a 16:9 screen, I am considering using an ISCO II to stretch the width and having constant height from 4:3 to 2.35:1.


Frank L

 

[ckolchak]

Dan

since you said you will mostly use this for movies, even w/ a 16:9 screen you will still see black bars for a fair # of films. Just about all the 'big' movies are 2:35. i have set up black velvet to mask my DIY screen at a 2:35 ratio. i also plan to use black velvet mounted on sliding panels to mask off the sides for other aspect ratios.

there is nothing like going from an old disney animated movies in 1:33 to opening up the screen for some 2:35 blockbuster.

This is really the ONLY reason i would give up the excellant PQ of my 4:3 digital RPTV.

to have gone with a 4:3 screen as some had suggested, or even a 16:9 would have been a bit of a drag.

i still get a decent sized 4:3 (about 63" diag) but my size for a film like Gladiator is 89".

 

[kelliot]

My vote.

16:9 is the way to go!


------------------

Ken Elliott

 

[DanHouck]

Ckolchak:


Thanks, I'm just about sold on 4:3. Hadn't thought about the black bars with 2:35, very good point.


Besides which another poster sent me the details of a very neat, very fast masking setup.


Thanks for your feedback. This is exactly what I hoped to get when I started this thread.


Dan

 

[arrow]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanHouck: Les: I've seen 10HT on this size screen and sitting only 11' away. Screendoor didn't bother me in the least. This setup will have Panamorp + MLA. Much less screendoor.

Who said anything about screendoor? At some point you start to get that front row of the movie theater feeling. You don't want the picture to be overwhelming so the general rule of thumb is 3x screen height for 4:3 and 1.5x screen width for 16:9. Of course, these numbers aren't entirely compatible which is why many of us chose large 16:9 screens with smaller 4:3 viewing areas.


--Les

 

[DanHouck]

Know those people sitting up close in the theater with their eyes rolled back? That's us! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Seriously, at 16' back I don't think an 86" wide screen is huge. BIG, maybe but not HUGE! The other problem is throw distance on this projector which allows only for a minimum 84" wide screen because of where I have to sit the projector.


Sorry, I thought your concern about the XP21N was screen door. Appreciate your feedback.


Dan

 

[videonut]

Hi, Dan.

My wife, Susan, and I know exactly where you're coming from. We also wanted the best of both worlds; wide screen movies are great, but there are so many of the old classics that we love, which are in the 4:3 format. So, for the last 8 years we've been using a Stewart screen with the 4:3 shape. My wife feels the black bars aren't dark enough, so for letterbox movies she has designed a matting system using flat black press board (various sizes have been cut to match the various screen widths). Our personal opinion is that this setup is the most versatile.


We also agree with you about waiting a little longer for the Holy Grail. The upcoming round will be for the guinea pigs. Our first projector was a ground-breaking Sharp LCD.

Back in the early nineties it was touted as the flagship that would set the HT market on its ear. It became a dinosaur in little over a year when its replacement arrived with three times the brightness at half the cost.


Hope this helps some.


[This message has been edited by videonut (edited 08-05-2001).]

 

[DanHouck]

It does, thank you. Exactly the kind of comment I'm looking for.


Now given your known propensity to spend lavishly on your HT, I'm surprised you don't have motorized curtains that majestically lower accompanied by appropriately dramatic background music and a laser light show! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Seriously, I had this thought that if I do a setup that will shift the image to the bottom, I could have a lowering shade to cover the top.


But 16:9 screens sure look cool, don't they!


Dan

 

[videonut]

I agree, that screen width does look quite appealing when entering the room. With our system you can have it that way!

If you'd like, I can e-mail you some pictures to show our setup, which some find quite unique.


PS: Believe me, we considered curtains, but they did not fit the look we had in mind.


[This message has been edited by videonut (edited 08-05-2001).]

 

[DanHouck]

I'd love to see the pictures, thank you very much!


You may want to post them here so everyone else can see as well.


Isn't this forum fantastic?


Dan